The Acme B.S. Detector

[SquirleyWurley]

It may be sound, it may not be sound, I really don't know, and I'm not sure how others have arrived at the conclusion that it is better than other alternatives, but I'm sure some have thought it through rather well and have some good points to make...

I mean, people may criticize some policies as 'voodoo economics' and they would seem to have some good points..

I don't mind some tax cuts to spur growth, or more importantly, to give people a break or way to take care of their health care, etc.  But there's got to be a point where a certain cut is too much or it goes on too long, so periodic review makes sense to me while suggestions of 'permanent' changes raise a caution flag for me.

Again, on principle that flexibility allows us to adapt to reality's challenges and that ideological systems and abstract principles which are rigid don't let us adapt as easily when reality shows us that we may benefit by correcting our strategy.

[Acumen]

Would you like to start with rescuing Social Security?

Why would we do that?  Social Security is a failed system, and it sucks up a lot of tax payer money.

[Acumen]

The issue of tax cuts somehow propelling the economy forward is actually quite a canard.  On the surface it seems right: cut taxes, people spend more, and the economy moves forward.  But let's say that taxes are actually increased a bit.  What happens?  OK, I have less spending money so I buy less, but what happens to that money that was the result of the taxes collected?  Did it just disappear into thin air?  No.

Monies collected gets spent, and the vast majority of that goes into buying and producing goods or services, which also helps to stimulate the economy.  Matter of fact, that's actually more efficient than giving tax breaks to the wealthy since a poor person, for example, is more apt to spend his/her money domestically than a wealthy person may, since a poor person does not travel to Europe or invest in the Brazilian stock market by and large.   

So poor people are better at stimulating the economy than the rich?   I'm not sure any economist would consider that sound reasoning.

[SquirleyWurley]

Haven't people of both parties taken money OUT of social security, thereby undermining it, for decades?

Re: the poor, I do understand how those with more resources may stimulate the economy.  But why indiscriminately throw money at people who already have more than adequate amounts for themselves personally.  A general tax cut for the wealthy is indiscriminate in that way.  Giving tax cuts for doing something that would stimulate the economy, is another matter, and some actions can be categorized as more or less helpful to stimulating the economy or creating jobs.  I mean let's make sense.

If you want to encourage development in this business sector or create jobs or keep jobs in America, etc., there are ways to ecnourage that specifically.  Just throwing money at those who have it, is, well, ridiculous.  I mean oligarchical rationales do exist, but oligarchy is a form of tyranny to be avoided, just as we don't want everything decided by the House of Representatives for fear of mob-tyranny.

[SquirleyWurley]

I didn't realize the percent of taxation was that high.  I was under the impression that numerous tax breaks and loopholes made it quite a bit less for most people in that bracket.

I'd be concerned that quick and sweeping changes to something like the tax code might make governmental financial planning/budget balancing/efficient functioning difficult, and I'd be concerned that some tax breaks may be either throwing money at people or corporations indiscriminately or creating a corporate welfare problem.

[Thorolf]

I disagree. What could we have done with the half trillion or so we've spent and continue to spend in Iraq? Would you like to start with rescuing Social Security? How about shoring up the levee systems along our rivers and seacoasts? I'm sure the folks along the Gulf and Mississippi would appreciate that and yes, those failings do affect our economy. Watch our food prices rise after the floods in the Mid-West.

The economic effects of the war may be hidden but they're there. You can't just throw away that much money and have no effect.

You are welcome to your opinion, but my statement remains - that money would not even have been realized - it wouldn't have been used for anything. At least, not anything productive.

Nobody put off Social Security reform because of Iraq. It's been put off because of politics.

Nobody put off shoring up levees because of Iraq.

Hindsight is fun and all, but let's try to maintain some realistic perspective - NOTHING would have been done differently from a policy standpoint with the money spent on the war.

Has it had economic impact? Yes, certainly... but don't delude yourself that any of these programs or repairs would have any different appearance today if only that money were still in the coffers.